paulbj2

Thanks for the enlightenment! I was 99.99% certain that chip and pin cards presented no risk of remote reading but it's good to hear that confirmed. Just before leaving for Thailand, I bought a "Lifeventure" brand "bum-bag" that made much of its ability to stop credit/debit cards with NFC capabilities from being read remotely and thus pilfered by crooks. I didn't buy it for that reason, I bought it because it was the only one I could find and indeed have ever found that has belt loops rather than its own waistband. It sounds like their sales pitch is a bit exaggerated.

And I still find it impossible to know how to vote.

On the one hand, I think the Brit govt. is corrupt and not to be trusted.

The Brit govt. has made it clear that it will opt for businesses being able to take advantage of the cheapest workers available (for those on the bottom of the scale) and minimal workers' rights. And this means immigrants flooding the market for low paid jobs.

On the other hand, the EU is just as corrupt - and I don't believe for one minute that Britain is getting more back than it pays in. But at least it does its best to force the Brit govt. to observe employee rights.

Lord Nigel Lawson, former Tory chancellor of the exchequer has this to say on the subject

"It's the big boys the CBI [Confederation of British Industry] and the banks who [support staying in the EU]. Its not the small companies.

"But it's not at heart an economic issue it's about whether you believe in democracy and self-government."

,

Economically, the case for remaining is clear

The issues of democracy and sovereignty are debatable

In my opinion, the democratic shortfall can be remedied from within

With respect to sovereignty, we share some but by no means all to achieve significant benefits. For example we share some sovereignty with NATO for mutual defence. We share some sovereignty with EU to bind Europe together and maintain the peace we have had for the last 70 years

Finally, EU has been a moderating influence on some of the more rapacious Tory tendencies. It is a pity we opted out of the social chapter otherwise we would have betting working conditions and better pensions I believe

There is a democratic deficit in the EU or rather there was. Originally, the European Parliament had no teeth; its deliberations and votes were just taken as "advisory". Today, the EP has teeth and can reject legislation.

I'm getting a bit brassed off with all the utter twaddle that people keep spouting on this topic. I spent the last 11 years before my retirement in September 2015 as a consultant to the EU so I know a bit about how it functions.

Faceless Brussels bureaucrats do NOT just dream up legislation and then foist it on an unsuspecting Britain. That's the story the likes of the Daily Mail, The Express, the Sun and the other "Daily " rags of the British press have been selling the gullible British public for years and it is a barefaced lie! You only have to give your grey matter a chance for a split second to realize that that is a completely farcical idea; do you really see the Germans, the French and all the other nations accepting that? Dishonest British politicians (and frankly that's most of them) also have a lot to answer for, as when they have agreed some legislation in Europe they they think the British public will not like, they blame it on Brussels.

In this context, the European Commission is responsible for PROPOSING and researching legislation and, when it has reached some conclusions as to what is needed, a discussion document is prepared and submitted to all interested parties for discussion and comments. That includes, of course, the relevant government departments in the UK. When everybody has had their say, further documents are prepared and submitted to all interested parties and this iterative process continues until there is a consensus of some sort and a final draft document can be prepared. The final draft has to be approved by the Council of Ministers of the EU which includes the relevant senior ministers from the British government (plus a small army of senior civil servants from Whitehall) as well as by the European Parliament. At all times and at all levels the British and its civil servants are as deeply involved in the process as all the other member nations.

This only becomes like "Faceless bureaucrats imposing their will on an unwilling Britain" if you are the editor of the Daily Mail or a dishonest British Minister who doesn't want to admit that (s)he has agreed some new unpopular legislation.

Such things are always to "help you" or "for the children." Most folks will not see the objection to such 'advances'; I do, its a different POV.

This is part of the cashless society/control the flow of money program. Its hardly divorced from EU removing the 500Euro note (and the US planning to stop printing $100 bills). Its all the tightening over the money supply and distribution. Its the same package of products offered to "help the customer" and "stop crime" but curiously result in the total control over the flow of money, its pattern of distribution, and shortly to end private transactions. Its not just Thailand.

If anyone gets a hankering to understand this more there is a great deal of information on line, and the tech is pretty simple. After that, then look at what folks are saying about the context. Regardless of the reason why its asserted such changes are needed they all have the combined effect to change society and the flow and control of money in many unpleasant ways.

Other than buying a car or other really high ticket items for cash which is discouraged these days, I can't really see a use for €500 notes. They were only introduced as a sop to countries that already had very high value notes in circulation. They are in effect of very little use. The only people who handle them enough to know a good one from a dud are the banks; virtually no shops will accept them so what is the point in having them? Same goes for $1000 bills. Most people have never even seen one!

Crooks can read a chipped card while it's in your pocket. The only way to stop this is wrap the card in foil.

Aren't you supposed to wear the foil on your head?

Yes but foil hats are so dreadfully sweaty in this weather!

Chip and pin cards have been in use since the mid/late 80s in France. The UK was predictably, excruciatingly slow to introduce them but I think they are pretty much universal there now too. The banks in the UK refused to implement all the security protocols that are used most everywhere else in Europe on the grounds of expense, but any chip and pin card is better than any magnetic stripe card.

One of the major issues used to be that the magnetic strip could be read and a card cloned even though it had chip and pin. The cloned card could then be used to in countries where chip and pin facilities did not exist and, if the skimmer had also obtained the pin number by one means of another, the card could be used to draw money from ATMs in countries like the US, India etc where chip and pin is still not supported. It was rumoured, at one time, that if you used a credit card in Hong Kong, at least one clone would be circulating within 24 hours, guaranteed!

Anyone who is used to driving cars with manual gearboxes, which is most people who aren't American, will use the handbrake when parking except possibly in winter in very cold countries when the pads can freeze to the disks and can be difficult to unfreeze.

You would certainly fail the driving test in every country I know if you failed to use it. In fact the standard procedure when stopping at say traffic lights is bring the vehicle to a halt, take it out of gear and apply the hand brake. Likewise at a Stop sign.

Most modern cars sold in Europe now have a system whereby the engine cuts out when you stop at traffic lights then it restarts when you press the clutch to engage a gear but I'm not sure how that works on a vehicle with automatic transmission.

I'm not sure what DCC stands for. Can you enlighten me.

Dynamic Currency Conversion (DCC). This is where the merchant/local transaction processing bank use their own exchange rate versus the Visa/Mastercard exchange rate. The DCC rate will usually be around 4% lower (worst) than the Visa/Mastercard exchange rate before any additional home country "card-issuing" bank foreign transaction fee may apply. DCC bad for the customer; DCC good for the merchant/local processing bank.

And when I say local processing bank I mean the bank the merchant uses to process card transactions...in turn that local processing bank interfaces with/connects to the Visa/Mastercard network and other other banks to complete the transaction. The receipt for signature will identify the local processing bank the merchant uses to process the transaction using your card....the bank name is usually right at the top of the receipt. It's purely up to the merchant if they use DCC.

Usually when purchasing an item if it was a DCC transaction, the receipt for signature will show the local currency like Thai baht and the currency the card was issued under...like a U.S. issued card would reflect U.S. Dollars. So, if you see two currencies on the receipt they want you to sign, "do not" sign. Say cancel that transaciton and rerun in the local currency/Thai baht. It only takes them about 2 minutes to cancel the old transaction and rerun the new one in local currency only not matter what "some" merchants may say. You may also see the offerred DCC exchange rate on the bottom of the receipt or on a separate slip that prints out of the POS machines which the clerk may keep/not hand to you as if they don't want you to see the lower exchange rate.

Happens to me a couple times a year. When I purchase an item for a Thai merchant who I know or I'm not sure automatically defaults to processing a foreign card using DCC like Pizza Company, HomePro, plus some others when handing my foreign card to the checkout clerk I make eye contact and say, "Charge Thai baht, not U.S. Dollars." And they comply...no issue.

But everyone once in a while even though I told them to charge in Thai baht they mess up and do a DCC transaction...I see the amounts in Thai baht and USD on the receipt for signature, I do not sign, I then say cancel and rerun in Thai baht, it takes them a minute or two to accomplish, I sign the receipt for signature that reflects only Thai baht, and we are all happy. Now the cancelled transaction may still appear on your card account for a few days but will drop off...just in case it don't (mine always have) be sure to keep the cancelled transaction receipts the checkout clerk gives you so you can work the issue with your card issuing bank.

DCC can occur at a ATM also, but the bank ATM will probably not call it DCC but instead Bank Rate, Home Rate, or some other warm and fuzzy name...and they may even reflect the exchange rate which once again will be serveral percent lower than the Visa/Mastercard exchange rate. Decline DCC on the ATM which may also be in vague/confusing terms...usually you would press the wording that says something along the lines of "Continue Without Conversion" which means your want to continue but not using the bank's conversion/exchange rate...it then continues on and you get the Visa/Mastercard exchange rate. Seems Mastercard cards are more susceptible to being offered a DCC transaction on an ATM. Once again, DCC bad for the customer, good for the bank.

Note: and remember don't confuse above fees with any fee your "card-issuing" bank may also apply since many card-issuing banks apply a "foreign transaction fee" typically in the 1 to 3% ballpark. Fortunately, all the U.S. debit and credit cards I use in Thailand do not apply a foreign transaction fee.

Repeat, DCC bad for the customer; good for the merchant/local processing bank.

Thanks for explaining that so clearly and comprehensively. I'll keep an eye out for that in future. Having said that, I tend to use my local Bangkok Bank card as much as possible these days then most of the problems mentioned in this conversation don't arise, except of course the 3% surcharge that was the subject of the original post.

Card surcharging is permitted by a merchant unless against the law in their home country/state. As far as I know surcharging and DCC is not prohibited by Thai laws as it done by quite a few merchants/banks. Now it is still frowned upon by both Visa/Mastercard if legal in a country but Visa/Mastercard can not do anything about it other than try to convince merchants its not in their best interest which probably falls upon deaf ears with many merchants. Visa/Mastercad also frowns upon DCC use (which is also OK unless illegal in a country) since they know many customers will incorrectly blame Visa/Mastercard for the surcharge or DCC when it fact it's the merchant applying the surcharge to make a little more profit/offset the Visa/Mastercard fee.

Now, personally, I do not do business with merchants who apply a surcharge and/or will only accept a DCC transaction with a foreign card--in my opinion they are just greedy merchants trying to make a little extra profit....and when applying a DCC they are just boning the farang who is using his foreign card.

Just for example, below is a snapshot from the Visa site regarding surcharging in the U.S. which is allowed in most states....also included is their webpage which talks more about surcharging.in the U.S.

https://usa.visa.com/support/small-business/regulations-fees.html#2

Capture.JPG

I'm not sure what DCC stands for. Can you enlighten me.

The majority of Thai staff are told "a,b,c" they dont think and/or not allowed to consider X,y,z, only what the boss says, so you can quote whatever you like, it wont matter to him/her, only what they have been instructed to say/do by the boss.

There is another thing that happens with credit card transactions here in Thailand that I find a bit worrying; most of the time, even if you enter the pin number for a chip and pin card, the staff in shops, restaurants and hotels still insist you sign the chit even though on most of them, it is marked in large, bold print "Signature not Required". The staff never even look at the signature to verify its authenticity so I'm unsure what the point of the exercise might be. I have pointed out before now that it clearly states "Signature not Required" on the chit but they remain completely unmoved and seem suddenly to suffer from complete deafness when challenged about this.

The only thing that worries me the possibility that a signed chit could be used to initiate a second offline transaction but maybe I'm being unduly paranoid on that front.

I guess this is a case of "we have been told to do this by the boss and so we do it without question".

"Sir, the price for that widget is $103 -- but if you pay cash, I can give you a discount that will lower the price to $100. No, of course there's no surcharge for using a credit card. Just a discount for paying cash."

But, hey, it's no longer illegal to charge a "convenience fee" for using a credit card in the US (with some apparent individual state exceptions).

As a result of long-standing litigation against the cards brands, merchants are now permitted to charge customers a surcharge for paying with a credit card. Ten states still prohibit surcharging, and surcharges are still not allowed on signature and pin debit transactions. - See more at: https://www.cardfellow.com/charging-customers-a-credit-card-convenience-fee-at-check-out/#sthash.6qjs5T2b.dpuf

Also, Visa's guidance to merchants:

https://usa.visa.com/support/small-business/regulations-fees.ht

Credit card regulations that apply in the USA, apply in the USA and not necessarily anywhere else in the world, that much should be blindingly obvious.

Many countries have no problem with retailers clawing back from the customer, the exorbitant sums that credit card companies demand by way of a discount from merchants. Indeed, some folk regard the credit card issuers as licensed bandits; not an unreasonable viewpoint when you consider that many credit card issuers are still charging around 20% or more in interest on balances whilst the bank rate is at an all time low in most countries (and indeed in some countries is even in the unthinkable negative territory).

Maybe this is the time, maybe to chip in with one more useful bit of information for the Brexiters.

I live in Luxembourg, when I'm not in Thailand, and those of you who think that EU migration to the UK has already got out of hand might wish to consider the following figures: slightly over 40% of the residents of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg are immigrants (like me). Over 50% of the residents of the capital city, Luxembourg City, are immigrants (like me) and do you know what, we all bump along just famously! Oh and perhaps I should also mention that this is not a recent phenomenon, it's been like this for years. Has it impacted the country's economy? I'd say so! Luxembourg is the richest country in the EU and, by at least one international benchmark (GDP per capita), the richest in the world. So yes it has impacted the economy, it's made the country rich!

Would I be correct in thinking that you are one of the Auditors for the EU. Thus enabling you to spend most of the year here in Thailand.[emoji57]

555. I like it!

I wish I were working for the Court of Auditors; even the lowest grades of civil servants there get rather more than my meagre pension. However, the reason I can spend a large percentage of my time in Thailand is because I am retired. You are very, very slightly right in that I did spend the last 10 years of my career as a consultant to the one of the bodies of the EU. I guess that means that I know rather more about it than most people. I have, in the past, worked for the civil service in the UK and found it to be utterly soul destroying, appallingly badly organised and unbelievably poorly managed. Quite honestly, in my opinion, the British civil service couldn't organise an orgy in a brothel! This is probably why so many of their massive IT projects turn into unmitigated disasters; I believe the current figure is around 40% of their major IT projects are in danger of catastrophic failure. By comparison, the EU civil service is pretty damned good, I was pleasantly surprised at the quality of management compared to the UK civil service, where there doesn't seem to be any quality at all.

Of course I would never claim that it is perfect, it isn't. Nevertheless, it compared favourably with all the other big organisations I have worked for including many large commercial concerns. I think this is quite an achievement when you consider that in a single meeting there were often 5 or 6 different nationalities often with very different approaches to problem solving. Sadly Brits are somewhat under represented in the EU civil service this is not because of any anti-British bias but because the bar for the minimum entry requirements is set higher than most Brits can attain. In order to qualify for the EU civil service, you have to score well in a highly competitive written exam and speak at least two European languages fluently. One of your job interviews will be conducted entirely in your second language so it does need to be pretty good. If you have any ambitions to be a senior manager in the EU civil service, then you need three European languages. It is the language skills that seems to be the major obstacle for UK applicants.

Maybe this is the time, maybe to chip in with one more useful bit of information for the Brexiters.

I live in Luxembourg, when I'm not in Thailand, and those of you who think that EU migration to the UK has already got out of hand might wish to consider the following figures: slightly over 40% of the residents of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg are immigrants (like me). Over 50% of the residents of the capital city, Luxembourg City, are immigrants (like me) and do you know what, we all bump along just famously! Oh and perhaps I should also mention that this is not a recent phenomenon, it's been like this for years. Has it impacted the country's economy? I'd say so! Luxembourg is the richest country in the EU and, by at least one international benchmark (GDP per capita), the richest in the world. So yes it has impacted the economy, it's made the country rich!

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/354

Sent from my SMART_4G_Speedy_5inch using Tapatalk

I don't know where these people get their figures but they are way off compared to anything official. I would say they are inventing shit to suit their own agenda, personally.

In addition to the official figures, the governments Spain and France have often complained that huge numbers of Brits, in particular, are actually resident in those countries but never actually register as residents as they are required to do by law. Indeed, a friend of mine who was living in Spain "under the radar" was just such a case. When he became seriously ill, he had to flee back to the UK to get anything beyond emergency medical treatment as he was not entitled to free medical treatment in Spain having not lived in the UK for 20 years and having not registered in Spain.

I suspect such cases may be very numerous.

When I was living in France in around 1990, I was offered a job by a cooperative of local town mayors as there were so many Brits flooding into the area buying old properties (you could get a granite built barn, ripe for conversion back then for £1500!) and moving lock-stock and barrel to France with their kids, their cars and ofttimes their parents but they spoke little or no French and they were incapable of sorting out the paperwork required to register their kids for school, register with the social security, get residents permits, re-register their cars and a whole host of other daily necessities. My job would have been to unburden the local administration by taking the Brits and sorting out all their administrative problems as I speak both English and fluent French. The average Brit's answer at the time when confronted with French administration was "ignore it, all of it!"; hardly a way to win friends and influence people.

Send back all the Europeans...

Bar stool logic,

Then Europe will send back all the Brits who have not contributed to our welfare system and who have no jobs, the fool needs to find out just how many Brits are living and working in in Europe first.

There are more mainland Europeans in UK than Brits in Europe.

Sent from my SMART_4G_Speedy_5inch using Tapatalk

This is an interesting point. Despite all the bar-stool rational, the actual figures suggest that very few EU citizens draw benefits such as Job Seekers Allowance or Social Security payments (although they are of course entitled to "in work" benefits the same as anyone from the EU or elsewhere). In fact citizens from EU countries have a much lower claim rate of JSA and social security benefit than UK citizens. They are overwhelmingly of working age and that's exactly what they are there to do; work.

However, if you then look at the huge number of Brits who live overseas, a disproportionate number of them are retired particularly in Spain, Portugal, Italy, France and Greece. If the EU reciprocal medical arrangements are withdrawn many, even most, of the retired will have little choice but to return to the UK as they will be unable to afford private medical insurance (this is generally limited to the under 70s anyway and invariably excludes pre-existing conditions) and very few will be in a position to pay their medical bills out of their pensions or savings.The best estimate I can find for numbers of such retired folk is around 500,000. If even half of those are forced to returned to the UK, the NHS would collapse overnight. 250,000 elderly and sickly patients suddenly appearing out of the blue.

It seems from the official figures that the number Brits living in the other EU countries roughly equals the number of EU citizens living in Britain so the net advantage to Britain would be small or more likely negative. The EU citizens working here get to stay and the Brit pensioners come flocking home as they no longer have medical cover.

How about 4?

* UK trade 50% outside EU as in Asia, Pacific, US, Commonwealth Countries. The UK is EU's single biggest customer world wide therefore EU needs UK more than other way around.

* 13 Billion pounds membership fee paid to EU budget 2015, EU spending on the UK was 4.5 billion

* Deconstruction of the British state and loss of sovereignty as Brussels takes over Westminster with unelected bureaucrats making European Union similar to Soviet Union which ultimately broke up.

* What Hitler couldn't do with bombs Cameron gives sovereignty away with enthusiasm

I would not describe one of those as a cogent, coherent arguments for leaving

No 1

A huge proportion of what we buy from the EU is agricultural products. Almost all our tomatoes, peppers, cucumbers, peaches, nectarines and a lot of other fruit and vegetables come from the EU. The classic British breakfast bacon is mainly sourced from the EU. Effectively, there are no other suppliers who could meet the UK demand for those products so either we do without them or we continue to buy them from the EU suppliers. Not much of a bargaining chip, really. Sure VW, BMW, Mercedes, and most Vauxhalls (made mainly in the EU) and other European marques would get a bit dearer if the UK slapped tariffs on, but I'm sure the British retail car industry could absorb that as they have screwed the British motorist for long enough. The UK exports to the EU are almost entirely manufactured goods. Surprisingly, perhaps, Britain is the 3rd or 4th largest manufacturer of cars in Europe (it's true!). We don't get to hear about that all that much as we make them for other people; mainly Japanese manufacturers. Nissan have a huge plant in Sunderland, Honda and Toyota both manufacture in the UK as do BMW (think Mini and Rolls Royce). It costs €100s of millions to equip a car plant to build a new model, the last time there was a change of model, Nissan had to choose between Sunderland and the Czech Republic (if I remember rightly). Labour and other costs were significantly lower in the Czech Republic but in the end Sunderland won because of the exceptionally high build quality but it was apparently a close run thing. Now consider the likely scenario if Britain goes for Brexit. The loss of unfettered access to the world's largest market in the shape of the EU will likely just swing it in the direction of the UK's EU competitors. The same scenario is probably going to be repeated at Honda, Toyota and BMW's plants in the UK. That's the end of tens of thousands of mainly highly skilled, well paid jobs; it may even result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of such jobs if you consider the knock-on effect on companies in the area who supply these huge plants. Volkswagen buy a large proportion of their brake assemblies from companies in the Midlands but they could shift to alternative sources in France, Italy or other countries if they are too inconvenienced by the Brexit. The Airbus consortium manufacture their wing assemblies and some other parts in the UK. They could manufacture them elsewhere in the EU and after a Brexit, the likelihood is they may well consider it. Of course, Airbus and the car manufacturers wouldn't just take the jobs away from Britain, they'd take the people as well. Think of it this way, if you are a highly skilled worker and you are offered redundancy and the prospect of little more than a job, shelf filling at Tesco or a much higher standard of living in a vibrant economy in central Europe where you would be a valued member of the team setting up a new plant, what would you do?

Of course there great opportunities in developing markets in the far east and elsewhere but the fact that we are members of the EU doesn't make trading with them more difficult, quite the contrary, the EU has trading agreements with almost everyone from which we benefit as much as any other member state. All these trading agreements would be invalidated for the UK after Brexit. The commonwealth, ha! I think you are still living in the 1950s. Australia's big trading partners are local; Indonesia, Japan and China. The US has made it plain that we are right at the back of the queue. What you left with are mainly countries who have no money to buy expensive goods from the UK, they want to sell stuff to us! They buy from China and other low cost economies.

No 2

I believe the figures you quote have been pretty much completely debunked by the independent fact checking organisations; the real figure is much lower. Nevertheless it is a fact that unlike some other economies, we are net contributors to the EU budget. However, I should point out that some of this is because of crass ineptitude on the part of the UK government. The UK could have claimed £millions in aid from the EU emergency fund following the recent catastrophic floods but they didn't claim it; citing some lame excuse about paperwork!

What most Brexiters claim will be huge economies may look a little sick when the truth emerges. Let's take the example of EASA, never heard of it? It's the "European Aviation Safety Agency" which is an EU body. They look after aviation safety and security for the whole EU in such matters as organising and coordinating air traffic control, licensing aircraft types and crew and a whole host of other rather important air safety related activities. They also maintain the blacklist of airlines who are not permitted to fly into European airspace (a long and scary list it is too; all 20 pages of it!). If the UK exits the EU, either the British will have to take over all this work for Britain thus needing to recruit and pay for 100s more civil servants or the UK will have to pay the EU agency to carry on doing it for them. There are dozens of such EU agencies; for example the EU medicines agency, the EMA, that looks after the safety and licensing of medicines in the EU (currently based in London along with several other EU bodies but presumably they will go upon Brexit), the EU Chemicals Agency (ECHA) which oversees the chemical safety in the EU (and for whom I designed the public database) and many, many others who perform vital tasks for the UK that will have to be either paid for by the UK or taken over by recruiting and training UK civil servants by the hundred.

These are the hidden costs to the UK of a Brexit decision.

No 3

Very bad news; to get a decent deal from the EU on trade and other matters we will have to accept "free movement of labour" so unlimited EU immigration, most EU regulations and we will have to pay the EU a huge sum for the privilege (although less than today).

No 4

What is sovereignty, pray explain! With the world's largest market on it's doorstep and in a world dominated by China, India, the US, Russia and the EU, the UK will have the right to do exactly as it pleases after Brexit until one of the big boys says it can't.

Can anyone give me a cogent, coherent reason that stands up to scrutiny why leaving the EU is such a great idea?

You'll get poverty with the EU due to immigration overwhelming the system.

The UK was strong and prosperous before it entered the EU. Few of the promises have come true while some current and potential future repercussions weren't expected by the people.

If you don't have borders and national security and sovereignty you can't manage a country and provide for your own people.

The UK will continue to get weaker in the EU just as it has already. The UK's debt is skyrocketing because it's overwhelmed.

Get out and take your country back. Build The Wall. You can trade with the USA while the rest of the EU sucks air and crashes. How do people get sucked into believing that something which hasn't worked thus far will work into the future?

The UK, strong and prosperous back in the late 60s and early 70s I don't know what planet you were living on in that era but it certainly wasn't planet earth.

I remember a nation that was brought to its knees almost every day by a strike in this industry or that industry. I remember industrial relations dominated by extreme left wing agitators. I remember Britain's universities being hotbeds of extreme left wing politics. I remember a nation in terminal industrial decline due to the disinclination of inept British management to invest in staff training, modern machinery and seemingly left rudderless in the new new age of industrial relations dominated by the powerful unions. I remember an era when unemployment passed the 1 million mark for the first time since the depression in the 30s. I remember daily announcements of hundreds, sometimes thousands of redundancies by Britain's great enterprises: British Steel, ICI, GEC, The Port of London Authority. I remember Britain's, once great, car industry staggering from one crisis to the next, from one all out strike to the next. I remember London buried under its own refuse with Leicester Square boasting a pile of it 50 feet high because the bin men had gone on strike.

What was "great and prosperous" about that?

There's just a couple of minor details that Brexit enthusiasts seem to have forgotten one of which is that most of our trade agreements with other countries are implemented through EU agreements. If we leave the EU, all those agreements disappear; Obama has rightly pointed out that we are not important enough in world trade to command much attention from the giants like the US and China. As he said, you go to the back of the queue.

The one we can't do without is an agreement with the EU. Over 50% of our trade is with them and they can, and quite likely will, play hardball with the UK if we leave. We will have cost them a huge amount of money, why should they go easy on us. One of the things the will most likely insist on is our continued compliance with the free movement of labour provisions. Do you Brexiters see the danger here: we vote to leave, we end up having to all the EU immigrants as before but now we don't even get a say in the decision making process. We just get told what we may and may not do! How is that an advantage?

Mostly true, but what you neglect to mention is that average salaries kept rising - until the mid 80s (?), when they started stagnating in real terms - and eventually falling.

I'm still shocked at the way industry in collusion with the govt managed to lower salaries and get rid of good company pensions so easily.

"Mostly"? With which statement are you disagreeing?

You'll get poverty with the EU due to immigration overwhelming the system.

The UK was strong and prosperous before it entered the EU. Few of the promises have come true while some current and potential future repercussions weren't expected by the people.

If you don't have borders and national security and sovereignty you can't manage a country and provide for your own people.

The UK will continue to get weaker in the EU just as it has already. The UK's debt is skyrocketing because it's overwhelmed.

Get out and take your country back. Build The Wall. You can trade with the USA while the rest of the EU sucks air and crashes. How do people get sucked into believing that something which hasn't worked thus far will work into the future?

The UK, strong and prosperous back in the late 60s and early 70s I don't know what planet you were living on in that era but it certainly wasn't planet earth.

I remember a nation that was brought to its knees almost every day by a strike in this industry or that industry. I remember industrial relations dominated by extreme left wing agitators. I remember Britain's universities being hotbeds of extreme left wing politics. I remember a nation in terminal industrial decline due to the disinclination of inept British management to invest in staff training, modern machinery and seemingly left rudderless in the new new age of industrial relations dominated by the powerful unions. I remember an era when unemployment passed the 1 million mark for the first time since the depression in the 30s. I remember daily announcements of hundreds, sometimes thousands of redundancies by Britain's great enterprises: British Steel, ICI, GEC, The Port of London Authority. I remember Britain's, once great, car industry staggering from one crisis to the next, from one all out strike to the next. I remember London buried under its own refuse with Leicester Square boasting a pile of it 50 feet high because the bin men had gone on strike.

What was "great and prosperous" about that?

There's just a couple of minor details that Brexit enthusiasts seem to have forgotten one of which is that most of our trade agreements with other countries are implemented through EU agreements. If we leave the EU, all those agreements disappear; Obama has rightly pointed out that we are not important enough in world trade to command much attention from the giants like the US and China. As he said, you go to the back of the queue.

The one we can't do without is an agreement with the EU. Over 50% of our trade is with them and they can, and quite likely will, play hardball with the UK if we leave. We will have cost them a huge amount of money, why should they go easy on us. One of the things the will most likely insist on is our continued compliance with the free movement of labour provisions. Do you Brexiters see the danger here: we vote to leave, we end up having to all the EU immigrants as before but now we don't even get a say in the decision making process. We just get told what we may and may not do! How is that an advantage?

The manager and the senior staff at the Bangkok Bank branch at "The Harbour" just up the road from the Maya Mall all speak pretty damned good English.